Rapport où le comité demande à être informé de l’évolution de la situation - Rapport No. 344, Mars 2007

315. The complaint is contained in a communication from the National Union of Public Workers (NUPW) dated 15 December 2005.

1. 316. The Government submitted its observations in a communication dated 11 January 2007.
2. 317. Barbados has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98). It has not ratified the Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 (No. 151).

A. The complainant’s allegations

1. 318. In its communication of 15 December 2005, the complainant states that in March 2003 the Government installed a CCTV surveillance/security system in Bridgetown Port, without any consultation with the workers or their trade unions. The complainant’s view is that the installation of such a system constitutes a unilateral imposition of a substantial alteration in the terms and conditions of employment of the affected officers, namely the customs officers and guards. By a letter of 16 June 2003, the complainant submitted a draft agreement (a copy of which is attached to its communication) aimed primarily at limiting access to the images generated by the CCTV system, so as to protect the customs employees and their immediate families by safeguarding their identities from drug traffickers, gun runners and others engaged in illegal activities.
2. 319. The complainant maintains that, although it had sought negotiations over this issue through several written requests, the Government has steadfastly refused to remove the CCTV system or engage in collective bargaining with respect to the issue. The complainant adds moreover that, following a strike to protest the system’s use, which took place over seven days in March–April 2003, the Government made deductions from the salaries of the participating employees in respect of the days of protest action.
3. 320. The complainant attaches several documents in support of its allegations, including, inter alia: (1) communications of 30 July, 19 August and 25 September 2003, from the complainant and addressed to the Ministry of Finance, relating to proposed negotiations with the Government over the use of the CCTV system in Bridgetown Port. The 30 July 2003 letter refers to a portion of the draft minutes of a 3 April 2003 meeting held at the Ministry of the Civil Service to discuss the surveillance system, in which the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry is quoted as having stated that the Government “was not negotiating the placement or use of the cameras in Bridgetown Port”; (2) a communication from the complainant to the Ministry of the Civil Service, dated 31 July 2003, which refers to a circular from the comptroller of customs stating the Government’s intention to make deductions from the salaries of customs staff who had participated in industrial action; and (3) a communication addressed to the complainant from the Ministry of Finance, dated 15 August 2003, which refers to the 3 April 2003 meeting held at the Ministry of Civil Service and confirms that the position set forth by the Permanent Secretary at the said meeting remains unchanged – there would be no compromise on the matter of security.
4. B. The Government’s reply
5. 321. In a communication of 11 January 2007, the Government states that in March 2003, senior management of the Barbados Port Inc. and the Customs and Excise Department discussed plans for enhancing the security of the Bridgetown Port, which included the installation of cameras. Part of those initial consultations included a presentation of the port’s security plan to the Marine and Aviation Security Committee, which is always attended by the Comptroller of Customs. Following the start-up of the camera installation process, discussions and meetings were ongoing with management of the customs and the port, and a comprehensive plan showing the location of the cameras together with a Protocol for the proper functioning of the enhanced security measures at the port was developed. The Protocol was then refined to cover the following areas: provision for joint monitoring of the camera systems, collaboration on use and destruction of the data/information, investigative procedures, establishment of a joint Management Committee to review the operation of the camera surveillance and identification of training opportunities.
6. 322. The Government states that with the increased security requirements of the shipping industry following the events of 11 September 2001, and the consequent establishment of the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code (ISPS) by the International Maritime Organization, the port was mandated to carry out specific security-enhancing measures, failure to comply with these measures would have caused Barbados to be blacklisted as an unsecured destination. The Government also had recognized the need for increased security at the port, and it was agreed that a number of initiatives would have to be taken, including the installation of the cameras. The Government contends that the installation of the camera system is not a change in the terms and conditions of service of the customs staff, since that term refers to fundamental “portable” terms and conditions of employment governing the relationship between an employer and employee.
7. 323. According to the Government, the Barbados Port is legally responsible for taking any action it considers necessary to ensure the safety and security of all cargo in its care. During the customs officers’ strike, the port authority had suspended the installation process and sealed the lenses on the cameras. However, once consultations leading to the drafting of the Protocol were complete the cameras were recommissioned. Since April 2006, the port authority has been awaiting confirmation from the Customs Department of its readiness to sign the Protocol.
8. 324. The Government confirms that deductions were made from the pay of striking employees for the period of the strike, stating that under General Order 3.29 the salaries and wages of officers and employees who go on strike will not be paid for any day or portion of a day during which they are on strike.
9. 325. With respect to negotiations with the complainant, the Government states that a meeting between the Ministry of the Civil Service (MCS) and the complainant was held on 23 October 2003. At said meeting the MCS indicated that it was not obliged to negotiate the installation of the CCTV system at Barbados’ ports of entry as that was a national security matter and therefore non-negotiable. The union’s concerns, however, would be brought to the attention of the relevant agencies.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 326. The Committee notes that this complaint concerns the refusal to hold negotiations on the installation and usage of a CCTV surveillance system in Bridgetown Port – in spite of several requests by the complainant respecting the same. The complainant considers that the installation of the CCTV system constitutes a material alteration in the terms of the employment of the customs officers and guards as it may possess implications for their personal safety and security; the use of the surveillance system should therefore be subject to negotiations with the Government. The Government, for its part, maintains that the installation of the CCTV system does not constitute a change in the employees’ terms and conditions of employment. The Government moreover had communicated to the complainant its position that the CCTV system’s deployment is a matter of national security, and therefore not open to negotiations, but that the union’s concerns would be brought to the attention of the relevant agencies.
2. 327. In this respect, the Committee recalls that Article 4 of Convention No. 98 provides for the promotion of collective bargaining with a view to regulating the “terms and conditions of employment by means of collective agreement”. The range of issues which may properly be subject to collective bargaining is consequently a very broad one, including, as it were, all matters which are primarily or essentially questions relating to conditions of employment; such matters include, but are not limited to: the type of agreement to be offered to employees or the type of industrial instrument to be negotiated in the future, as well as wages, benefits and allowances, working time, annual leave, selection criteria in case of redundancy, the coverage of the collective agreement, the granting of trade union facilities, including access to the workplace beyond what is provided for in legislation, etc. [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth edition, 2006, para. 913].
3. 328. Certain subjects may, however, be excluded from the scope of collective bargaining. For instance, with regard to allegations concerning the refusal to bargain collectively on certain matters in the public sector, the Committee recalled the view of the Fact-Finding and Conciliation Commission on Freedom of Association that “there are certain matters which clearly appertain primarily or essentially to the management and operation of government business; these can reasonably be regarded as outside the scope of negotiation” [see Digest, op. cit., para. 920]. Nevertheless, the Committee also recalls that, even in cases involving matters which may be excluded from the scope of negotiation, such as the determination of the broad outlines of education policy, collective bargaining should still be allowed on the consequences such matters may have for conditions of employment [see Digest, op. cit., paras 922–923].
4. 329. The Committee notes the complainant’s statement that the very introduction of the CCTV system implies consequences for the personal safety of the customs staff and it refers specifically to the need to safeguard their identities. Bearing the above-noted principles in mind, the Committee is of the view that, although the decision to install a CCTV system may – to the extent that it forms part of a broader Government policy on port security – reasonably be regarded as lying outside the scope of collective bargaining, it nonetheless considers that the presence of such a system may have an impact upon the customs staff’s conditions of employment, which should be the subject of consultation and negotiation between the parties. The Committee recalls that, when reviewing another complaint involving customs officials, it had emphasized the importance it attaches to the promotion of dialogue and consultations on matters of mutual interest between the public authorities and the most representative occupational organizations of the sector involved [see 299th Report, Case No. 1808 (Costa Rica), para. 380], and requests the Government to enter into dialogue with the union on the impact that the surveillance system may have on the terms and conditions of employment of customs staff. The Committee suggests that, in the event of deadlock, the Government, in consultation with the social partners, give consideration to providing, in respect of the matters raised, adequate, impartial, and speedy conciliation and arbitration proceedings in which the parties concerned can take part at every stage and in which awards, if and when made, are fully and promptly implemented. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of developments in this respect.
5. 330. As regards the deductions from the pay of employees for the days in which they participated in industrial action, the Committee recalls that salary deductions for days of strike give rise to no objection from the point of view of freedom of association principles [see Digest, op. cit., para. 654]. Consequently, the Committee will not pursue its examination of this matter.